JUDGMENT P.K. Misra, J. - The opposite party No. 1 as a Contractor had taken up the work of construction of roads, culverts and storm water drains at Nalco Nagar township. A dispute having arisen, on the basis of an application filed by the present opposite party No. 1, the petitioner appointed an arbitrator and such appointment was intimated to the arbitrator by letter dated 29-6-1995. In the said letter appointing the arbitrator it was mentioned : "... Appointment is without prejudice to the limitations, arbitrability and maintainability of the claims and the arbitration proceedings. The award shall be reasoned and speaking award ..." Therefore, the Arbitrator entered upon the reference on 18th July, 1995. Apart from fixing other conditions, the arbitrator recorded in his proceedings dated 18th July, 1995 inter alia, as follows : "... The order of reference was read out to the parties and both parties have no objection if the arbitrator after conclusion of hearing passes a reasoned and speaking award ..." Thereafter, the claimant-opposite party No. 1 filed his statement of claim before the arbitrator and the present petitioner filed certain preliminary objections, recording the arbitrability and maintainability of the proceeding. Among others, it was contended that the claims were barred by limitation and the claim should be rejected, as such. After hearing the parties, the arbitrator observed inter alia as follows : "... The main contention of respondent is that the claims are not arbitrable since they are barred by limitation. The question of limitation cannot be properly decided until the respondent filed their detailed statement of objections to the various averments of the claimant in paragraph 3, page 2 of his statement of claims as the question of limitation is mixed question of law and fact. *** *** *** *** The order of reference states that any appointment as an arbitrator is without prejudice to the limitation, arbitrability and maintainability of the claims and the arbitration proceeding. *** *** *** *** I will consider the matters of limitation, arbitrability and maintainability of the claims while passing my award after the respondents submit their detailed objection to the statement of claims and after both the parties adduce their respective evidence in support of their pleadings ...................." 2. The petitioner thereafter, approached the Civil Judge (Sr. *** *** *** *** I will consider the matters of limitation, arbitrability and maintainability of the claims while passing my award after the respondents submit their detailed objection to the statement of claims and after both the parties adduce their respective evidence in support of their pleadings ...................." 2. The petitioner thereafter, approached the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Angul, by filing an application purported to be under Sections 33 and 41 of the Arbitration Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While dismissing the said petition, the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Angul, has observed that the claim was not barred by limitations. Hence the present Civil Revision. 3. In the present Civil Revision, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the various documents and urged that the claim application was barred by limitation and accordingly, the arbitrator and the Civil Judge should have dismissed the claim application on the ground of limitation. The learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. supported the reasoning of the Court below and has urged that the claim application is not barred by limitation. 4. In view of the order proposed to be passed hereunder. I do not enter upon a detailed discussion regarding the contentions of the parties with reference to various dates and documents, as the same is likely to prejudice either of the parties. 5. The Arbitrator had observed in his order that the question of limitation cannot be properly decided until the respondents filed their detailed statement of objections to the various averments of the claimant in Paragraph-3, Page-2 of his statement of claims. He has also observed that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and the matter would be considered after adducing evidence. If the question of limitation or arbitrability of the claim would be a pure question of law, such question can be taken up by the arbitrator even before taking up other disputed questions. In the present case, the petitioner had not filed its detailed objections to the statement of claim. If the question of limitation or arbitrability of the claim would be a pure question of law, such question can be taken up by the arbitrator even before taking up other disputed questions. In the present case, the petitioner had not filed its detailed objections to the statement of claim. If after filing its detailed objections to the statement of claim, the present petitioner thinks it appropriate, it may raise the questions of limitation and arbitrability before the Arbitrator and thereafter, if the Arbitrator is satisfied that the questions raised can be disposed of as pure questions of law without involving any disputed question of fact, the arbitrator should take up those questions first. If, however, the Arbitrator feels that the question of limitation and arbitrability would depend upon certain factual aspects, it would be better to take up the entire matter including the questions of limitation and arbitrability. While deciding the matter either as a preliminary point or alongwith other disputed questions, the Arbitrator is required to pass a reasoned and speaking award in view of the terms of appointment as well as the submission made by the parties, before the arbitrator as reflected in the order of the Arbitrator dated 24-2-1996. I may also add here that the learned Counsel for both the parties have stated before this court that a reasoned and speaking award should be passed by die Arbitrator. 6. From the order passed by the Civil Judge, it appears that the Civil Judge has already prejudged the question of limitation by making observation that the claims are not barred by limitation. The main question before the Arbitrator was as to whether the question of limitation should be taken up as a preliminary issue and the petitioner had approached the Court below against such order of the Arbitrator refusing to take the question of limitation as a preliminary point. It was, therefore, improper on the part of the Civil Judge to have discussed about the question of limitation. It was, therefore, improper on the part of the Civil Judge to have discussed about the question of limitation. If the civil Judge was satisfied that the question raised was a mixed question of fact and law, he should have directed the Arbitrator to take up the matter alongwith other issues or other points involved and if in the opinion of the Civil Judge the question raised was pure question of law, he could have directed the Arbitrator to go into the matter instead of delving into the matter himself. Since the Civil Judge has unnecessarily gone into that question, I consider it appropriate to observe that all the discussions and observations made by the Civil Judge should be considered to be non-est and the Arbitrator would be free to decide the question of limitation either as a preliminary point if he considers it to be a pure question of law, or alongwith the questions if he considers it to be a mixed question of fact and law, without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by the Civil Judge in the impugned order. Since the matter has been unnecessarily prolonged, it would be proper for the Arbitrator to dispose of the matter as quickly as possible. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions the Civil Revision is disposed of, subject to the following directions : (i) The present petitioner should file the detailed objections to the statement of claim if it is not filed in the meantime within a period of one month from today. It would be open to the petitioner after filing such application to renew his prayer for taking up the question of limitation and arbitrability as preliminary point and if such a prayer is made the Arbitrator should consider it again; (ii) If the Arbitrator feels that the question raised is a pure question of law, he should take up the question as a preliminary point and if he considers it to be a mixed question of fact and law the consideration of such question should be alongwith other aspects; (iii) Whether the question is taken up as a preliminary point or alongwith other points, the Arbitrator should give reasoned and speaking award on each of the points involved in the proceedings. There will be no order as to costs. Revision disposed of. *-*-*-*-*